paskal
04-08 11:19 AM
If you want a good discussion on a topic stop generalizing things and do not use rants like racist engineers etc. When you make an assumption please be clear about. You have assumed most people work for consulting companies and most people are frustrated with it. Not so. I don't work for them and I am not frustrated with them. My only concern with them is they are exploiting the system to their advantage and at my cost. This has two fold affect not only the take cut from your salary but also put a bad name to H1B visa program in general. Whoever wrote the bill or whatever are the consequences there is definitely some good things in that bill. Let me list out how some provisions are good:
1. If you are employable in US and you have the skills you will get the job with or without these middlemen. They come into picture only because they can start a corporation and then start the exploitation game. If a bill is taking these guys out what's wrong with it ? This will allow genuine corporations to hire the right candidates.
2. Putting 30 days of ad. to hire US citizens first ? What's wrong with it ? If their skills are really outdated and you are the best and the brightest you will get the job.
If you need more evidence of why H1B program needs reform look no further than H1B cap used up on first day. This has put good undue hard ship for good candidates while Infosys/Wipro etc will once again take the lion's share of H1B numbers. Why do you want them to win at your cost ? Stop calling people affected by this mess as "Racist Engineers". Try to put yourself in their shoes and some of these practices are affecting both the H1B visa holders (with indentured servitude) and citizens with wage depression. No body wins in the end but the people who are exploiting the system.
on the face of it i largely agree, you are however misisng something important in my opinion. Look at the Lc process for Gc carefully. A company is required to advertise then employ any citizen with "minimum requirements" whether or not they are suitable or the best candidate. If the same were to be applied to the H1b- and to renewals, mind it, consider whether most H1B visa holders would be able to continue.
the fact that reform is needed does not mean this is the best way.
and btw i wonder what happens to true consulting companies- BCG, Oracle etc whose business is to provide these services. They are not some abusive offshore operation....how is it fair to them? Seems a bit radical to me...not that i oppose the need for reform.
1. If you are employable in US and you have the skills you will get the job with or without these middlemen. They come into picture only because they can start a corporation and then start the exploitation game. If a bill is taking these guys out what's wrong with it ? This will allow genuine corporations to hire the right candidates.
2. Putting 30 days of ad. to hire US citizens first ? What's wrong with it ? If their skills are really outdated and you are the best and the brightest you will get the job.
If you need more evidence of why H1B program needs reform look no further than H1B cap used up on first day. This has put good undue hard ship for good candidates while Infosys/Wipro etc will once again take the lion's share of H1B numbers. Why do you want them to win at your cost ? Stop calling people affected by this mess as "Racist Engineers". Try to put yourself in their shoes and some of these practices are affecting both the H1B visa holders (with indentured servitude) and citizens with wage depression. No body wins in the end but the people who are exploiting the system.
on the face of it i largely agree, you are however misisng something important in my opinion. Look at the Lc process for Gc carefully. A company is required to advertise then employ any citizen with "minimum requirements" whether or not they are suitable or the best candidate. If the same were to be applied to the H1b- and to renewals, mind it, consider whether most H1B visa holders would be able to continue.
the fact that reform is needed does not mean this is the best way.
and btw i wonder what happens to true consulting companies- BCG, Oracle etc whose business is to provide these services. They are not some abusive offshore operation....how is it fair to them? Seems a bit radical to me...not that i oppose the need for reform.
wallpaper disco ball wallpaper. disco
gsc999
07-03 03:55 PM
Here is my $99 by paypal.
Amount: $99.00 USD
Transaction ID: 5DB90775US5552631
Amount: $99.00 USD
Transaction ID: 5DB90775US5552631
paskal
12-27 02:40 PM
if i'm travelling TO India and transiting through paris/london
and I have an Indian passport, WHY should I need to show a US Visa to avoid a transit visa? Does this make any sense? I'm not going to the US?????
and I have an Indian passport, WHY should I need to show a US Visa to avoid a transit visa? Does this make any sense? I'm not going to the US?????
2011 Related Wallpapers
pdaug2002
03-17 10:34 AM
EB3 - India
PD : Aug 2002
PD : Aug 2002
more...
kondur_007
04-10 10:28 AM
Does anyone have numbers for spillover last year category wise? I mean, last year how many EB4, EB5 and EB1 left out visas got spilled over to EB2? Thanks...
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
sanju
02-03 05:12 PM
Guys we need to see the staff of 4 people. Congresswoman Zoe Logfen, Senator John Cornyn , Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Gillibrand. I have spoken to the offices of 2 of these Lawmakers, and they have always shown the understanding of this issue. as you may know recently elected NY Senator Gillibrand mentioned about 'some country people waiting for 8 years', this tells her understanding of the situation.
I have 4 people sent me emails, It would be good if we can make a group of about 20 people...It'll also help if people of these 4 states come forward...
also please suggest on conferencing facilitie..
Thanks
Whatever you do, do not ask Senator Cornyn to sponsor anythiong for us this year. He has been our champion in last 2-3 years and he is a great guy. But right now, democratic majority is very pissed off from Senator Cornyn. And anything Senator Cornyn sponsors/cosponsors will never get done in this Congress. Watch the news about Senator Cornyn carefully, and you will know what I am saying. Stay away from him, and if he says he will sponsor anything for us, request him not to, if you want to get anything done.
And BTW, the folks you are listing have already supported our provisions in the past, other than the incoming Senator Gillibrand. The important thing is to get the support of the Democratic leadership. Without leadership support, it won't anywhere.
.
I have 4 people sent me emails, It would be good if we can make a group of about 20 people...It'll also help if people of these 4 states come forward...
also please suggest on conferencing facilitie..
Thanks
Whatever you do, do not ask Senator Cornyn to sponsor anythiong for us this year. He has been our champion in last 2-3 years and he is a great guy. But right now, democratic majority is very pissed off from Senator Cornyn. And anything Senator Cornyn sponsors/cosponsors will never get done in this Congress. Watch the news about Senator Cornyn carefully, and you will know what I am saying. Stay away from him, and if he says he will sponsor anything for us, request him not to, if you want to get anything done.
And BTW, the folks you are listing have already supported our provisions in the past, other than the incoming Senator Gillibrand. The important thing is to get the support of the Democratic leadership. Without leadership support, it won't anywhere.
.
more...
RNGC
02-19 01:42 PM
Read this carefully before you comment here:
"fingerprints for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section".
This is just to verify if the guys is in database for any criminal activity. ofcourse they will not give an illegal guy a GC if they have his record in database for criminal activity in US. This is just a formal requirement to keep illegal law brokers out because there are thousands illegals who came here from southern border and have committed crimes. There are some even in the America's Top 10 Wanted list. My uncles(came illegally here) went through all criminal checks by FBI for breaking any law,when Reagan gave amnesty for >5 years. Same criminal checks were done on illegals when Clinton helped legalalization of illegals. Fingerprints, etc are just for other criminal history check not to check if the person crossed the border illegally, ofcouse he did and broke the law: that's the whole point for him being illegal.
In fact >5year rule has been a standard to give immigration to illegals as is clear by Reagan amnesty. If 5 year rule is not for illegals, then what do you think is there in this bill for 11 million illegals. Itn't that logical. Infact main purpose of this bill is to fix illegal immigrants not legals. If you think >5 years rule is just for legals, you need to read history books, read text carefully and be more logical: not blinded by desire to get your own GC if you are here >5years.
Either way: I never said we should oppose the 5 year requirement. I just said that rules for "Legal <5 years" should be easier than rules for "illegal>5" years and please don't propagate false rumors here that this bill is just for legals in a blind desire for your own GC.
So what if illegals are also covered in this! Illegals are kind of people suffering from their employers because they don't have any paperwork! We, are slightly better, we have paper work and still suffer at the hands of our employers, so we know their plight...So, I would say illegals also have to be considered. I DO NOT SUPPORT ILLEGALS. But they are human beings too and are living in the dark.....
My take on ilegals is:
1. Build a huge prison and put all of them in there and feed them rest of their life.
OR
2. Arrest all of them and deport them their home country
IF 1 or 2 is not possible, better give them green card as long as they have not committed any crime and legalize them so no one takes advantage of them...we have had one round of slavery in this country and its consequence is still felt, lets not have another round of slavery with illegals.
"fingerprints for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status under this section".
This is just to verify if the guys is in database for any criminal activity. ofcourse they will not give an illegal guy a GC if they have his record in database for criminal activity in US. This is just a formal requirement to keep illegal law brokers out because there are thousands illegals who came here from southern border and have committed crimes. There are some even in the America's Top 10 Wanted list. My uncles(came illegally here) went through all criminal checks by FBI for breaking any law,when Reagan gave amnesty for >5 years. Same criminal checks were done on illegals when Clinton helped legalalization of illegals. Fingerprints, etc are just for other criminal history check not to check if the person crossed the border illegally, ofcouse he did and broke the law: that's the whole point for him being illegal.
In fact >5year rule has been a standard to give immigration to illegals as is clear by Reagan amnesty. If 5 year rule is not for illegals, then what do you think is there in this bill for 11 million illegals. Itn't that logical. Infact main purpose of this bill is to fix illegal immigrants not legals. If you think >5 years rule is just for legals, you need to read history books, read text carefully and be more logical: not blinded by desire to get your own GC if you are here >5years.
Either way: I never said we should oppose the 5 year requirement. I just said that rules for "Legal <5 years" should be easier than rules for "illegal>5" years and please don't propagate false rumors here that this bill is just for legals in a blind desire for your own GC.
So what if illegals are also covered in this! Illegals are kind of people suffering from their employers because they don't have any paperwork! We, are slightly better, we have paper work and still suffer at the hands of our employers, so we know their plight...So, I would say illegals also have to be considered. I DO NOT SUPPORT ILLEGALS. But they are human beings too and are living in the dark.....
My take on ilegals is:
1. Build a huge prison and put all of them in there and feed them rest of their life.
OR
2. Arrest all of them and deport them their home country
IF 1 or 2 is not possible, better give them green card as long as they have not committed any crime and legalize them so no one takes advantage of them...we have had one round of slavery in this country and its consequence is still felt, lets not have another round of slavery with illegals.
2010 Panic At The Disco Wallpaper
dkjariwala
04-09 12:18 AM
The person was returning from the India trip. Anyway, I think I will shut up for now and get in touch with the person so that IV can help him and we can get some clarification on what IO can or can not do.
more...
thecipher5
10-12 03:22 PM
Hello!
I don't know if anyone is in or has been in a similar situation. But would appreciate sound advise on the next steps...
My wife and mine PD have been current since September 1st (PD: Apr 2006). We'd received a RFE in 2009 and we'd responded to it in June 2009. The status on USCIS states "Response Review" for both of us and that we should hear back within 60 days of receiving the RFE response which dates back to June 2009.
I've opened a SR, contacted a congressman and still no update or specific feedback since 1st week of September.
What should I do in such a situation?? Can I take an Infopass appointment even though 45 days haven't elapsed since opening SR?
What other avenues can I pursue to obtain concrete feedback on our applications?
all the help appreciated!
thecipher5
I don't know if anyone is in or has been in a similar situation. But would appreciate sound advise on the next steps...
My wife and mine PD have been current since September 1st (PD: Apr 2006). We'd received a RFE in 2009 and we'd responded to it in June 2009. The status on USCIS states "Response Review" for both of us and that we should hear back within 60 days of receiving the RFE response which dates back to June 2009.
I've opened a SR, contacted a congressman and still no update or specific feedback since 1st week of September.
What should I do in such a situation?? Can I take an Infopass appointment even though 45 days haven't elapsed since opening SR?
What other avenues can I pursue to obtain concrete feedback on our applications?
all the help appreciated!
thecipher5
hair Disco Tech Ball Live Wallpaper
GCNirvana007
10-12 11:15 AM
The part I didnt understand is how come you are so stupid? I hope you carry your passport when you go to the bathroom also because a dumb ass sheep like you probably needs it.
Mr.Bhootia - It wont take a second to type back the same.
I mentioned about LAW and you are calling me stupid, that explains how you roll isnt it.
Mr.Bhootia - It wont take a second to type back the same.
I mentioned about LAW and you are calling me stupid, that explains how you roll isnt it.
more...
mbawa2574
02-28 12:54 PM
What a lovely change. Every time Obama and his press Secy opens their mouth, markets dive into red. In this country Main Street and Wall Street are in bed with each other :-)
Obama with his sense-less economic policies, trying to separate Main Street from Wall street. Government needs to seriously lure the investors to the market , cut capital gains and taxes, take off protectionist hats and recover the economy. Then Obama can go with his socialist/populist agenda but certainly this is not the right time.:D
Obama with his sense-less economic policies, trying to separate Main Street from Wall street. Government needs to seriously lure the investors to the market , cut capital gains and taxes, take off protectionist hats and recover the economy. Then Obama can go with his socialist/populist agenda but certainly this is not the right time.:D
hot ball wallpaper. disco ball
GCNaseeb
03-07 09:45 AM
I got hell out of my sponsoring employer. While I worked for them over 5 years, I had a terrible experience with their HR and some other souls. So I decided to make use of AC21 and changed the job. I feel so much relaxed now and I see light at the end of tunnel. My Green card is around the corner. USCIS has no reason to deny my petition. Afterall, we have just one life to live; how long you can let your career stegnate just for the sake of a piece of paper. Does that makes sense at all?
more...
house At The Disco « Read Less
bheemi
07-02 09:35 AM
YOU PEOPLE understand first what i kept in the reply. I did not blame IV for doing other efforts..I am talking about facts about USCIS..So dont make fool us or yourself as IV or any other organization will not be able to attack USCIS..Bcoz USCIS is monarch..
tattoo ackground, disco ball,
Desertfox
12-10 07:01 PM
I am on L1 & my I-94 is expiring in a month from now on 11 Dec 2007 . I have applied for my L-Extenstion and is pending for approval.
Given this case - can my wife apply for a EAD with the current L1 approved document (expiring on 11 Dec 2007( and add my L-Extension approval papers later on?
There seems to be a three month delay in getting the EAD - hence wanted to initiate the process earlier and not till my L-Extension papers come-in
Please help me ASAP.
Sriram
My spouse got EAD from similar situation. Your wife should file I-765 for L-2 based EAD along with the receipt notice (I-797) of your I-129 (L-1 extension application). She should mail a I-765 hardcopy application to USCIS. USCIS will get back to you with RFE after 45-60 days for your I-129 approval notice (i.e. principal applicant's L-1 extension approval). BTW... hasn't she already filed for I-539 this way?
Given this case - can my wife apply for a EAD with the current L1 approved document (expiring on 11 Dec 2007( and add my L-Extension approval papers later on?
There seems to be a three month delay in getting the EAD - hence wanted to initiate the process earlier and not till my L-Extension papers come-in
Please help me ASAP.
Sriram
My spouse got EAD from similar situation. Your wife should file I-765 for L-2 based EAD along with the receipt notice (I-797) of your I-129 (L-1 extension application). She should mail a I-765 hardcopy application to USCIS. USCIS will get back to you with RFE after 45-60 days for your I-129 approval notice (i.e. principal applicant's L-1 extension approval). BTW... hasn't she already filed for I-539 this way?
more...
pictures At The Disco wallpaper!
psaxena
05-27 05:33 PM
I am really laughing.... very true, there are a lot of dumbs on this forum
The guy at Kino's was probably a dumb high school dropout and you have proved to be his match by posting it here....
The guy at Kino's was probably a dumb high school dropout and you have proved to be his match by posting it here....
dresses smart for two disco wallpaper
desi3933
02-11 07:36 PM
I actually was saying I agreed w you. Read my post again... I was trying to say a few things over and above...
Aside from that, I have questioned Ron's correctness on this particular issue well before you produced that data.
Also if people somehow do not want to pay attention to facts then so be it.. Why be rude?
>> Why be rude
My apologies if my post reflected that. My intention was never that.
.
Aside from that, I have questioned Ron's correctness on this particular issue well before you produced that data.
Also if people somehow do not want to pay attention to facts then so be it.. Why be rude?
>> Why be rude
My apologies if my post reflected that. My intention was never that.
.
more...
makeup tattoo wallpaper disco. disco
smuggymba
08-21 12:35 PM
Thread Starter - unless you tell EXACTLY which GC category you fall in, when exactly was it applied - is the employment based, family based or what........ur asking questions but tellt he TECHNICAL details of your case..rather than saying USCIS is bad etc.
USCIS evaluates an application when they open it for the first time - if they saw ur application 6 years later and a single field were missing...u'll have to file again.
To me it seems like - u were illegal when u filed becuase u came here for a month and instead filed for GC, which was not ur original intention.
The work u do here will get u a job in canada easily. Tons of ppl are moving to canada from US just because of this crappy USCIS and GC process.
Contact an attroney, if u dont have the money, request someone pro bono favor or contact some agency. I'm not sure if canadian consulate can help u.
USCIS evaluates an application when they open it for the first time - if they saw ur application 6 years later and a single field were missing...u'll have to file again.
To me it seems like - u were illegal when u filed becuase u came here for a month and instead filed for GC, which was not ur original intention.
The work u do here will get u a job in canada easily. Tons of ppl are moving to canada from US just because of this crappy USCIS and GC process.
Contact an attroney, if u dont have the money, request someone pro bono favor or contact some agency. I'm not sure if canadian consulate can help u.
girlfriend At The Disco
god_bless_you
12-13 07:40 AM
Whats the advice on this from core group?
can we start mass web faxing USCIS for rule change?
can we start mass web faxing USCIS for rule change?
hairstyles Wallpaper: Panic at the Disco
amitjoey
01-18 11:48 AM
Guys, this is the time to show the core group that we are a bunch of people thankful that there is IV to help us fight this fight.
We need to stand united and raise awareness and sign up for the $20minimum a month recurring contribution.
I understand that some of you do intend to contribute and have contributed generously in the past,
But here are some mindsets, All of us fall in these 4 mindsets.
1) you probably think "why should I sign up for a monthly recurring contribution program". I am a generous contributor and I contribute almost monthly anyways.
2) I have contributed enough.
3) I will contribute if I feel like, when I see something comming out of this effort.
4) I do not have to contribute.
If you are in category 1).I can tell you, I understand because I have been a generous contributer in the past. But guys, the reason I signed up for a monthly recurring contribution is that it helps IV know that 'X' amount of funds are guaranted every month, this way they can better plan.
Category 2) Contributed enough - Okay why dont just sign up for a minimum amount of $20/month once more. What is enough is not enough.
Category 3) This has been discussed, I do not want to talk about this category of members.
Category 4) Again - No Comments-
Lets show the core team that all of us fall in the first 2 categories.
The last thing we want the core to do is bite their fingers over funds. We want do not want the core to get stressed out over funds. They have enough real work to do already.
Inspite of being a serious team player, and a generous contributor it took me two days to sign up for the recurring monthly contribution program, so I give all of the ones that have not set up a monthly recurring contribution benefit of doubt. But this is our last chance, I urge you to be one of the 1000 people we need for this effort.
We need to stand united and raise awareness and sign up for the $20minimum a month recurring contribution.
I understand that some of you do intend to contribute and have contributed generously in the past,
But here are some mindsets, All of us fall in these 4 mindsets.
1) you probably think "why should I sign up for a monthly recurring contribution program". I am a generous contributor and I contribute almost monthly anyways.
2) I have contributed enough.
3) I will contribute if I feel like, when I see something comming out of this effort.
4) I do not have to contribute.
If you are in category 1).I can tell you, I understand because I have been a generous contributer in the past. But guys, the reason I signed up for a monthly recurring contribution is that it helps IV know that 'X' amount of funds are guaranted every month, this way they can better plan.
Category 2) Contributed enough - Okay why dont just sign up for a minimum amount of $20/month once more. What is enough is not enough.
Category 3) This has been discussed, I do not want to talk about this category of members.
Category 4) Again - No Comments-
Lets show the core team that all of us fall in the first 2 categories.
The last thing we want the core to do is bite their fingers over funds. We want do not want the core to get stressed out over funds. They have enough real work to do already.
Inspite of being a serious team player, and a generous contributor it took me two days to sign up for the recurring monthly contribution program, so I give all of the ones that have not set up a monthly recurring contribution benefit of doubt. But this is our last chance, I urge you to be one of the 1000 people we need for this effort.
rockstart
03-12 11:56 AM
How do you guys find out what job code your H1B/labor was filed under?
My H1b saus 030, but I think the job is a 6 digit number.
Where can I locate that?
Thanks
Check your Perm Labor Section F column 2
My H1b saus 030, but I think the job is a 6 digit number.
Where can I locate that?
Thanks
Check your Perm Labor Section F column 2
franklin
09-19 11:40 PM
Whilst in general a name change does sound like a good idea, we have spent a lot of time and money making sure that Immigration Voice as an organization is known.
It makes no sense to through that away
It makes no sense to through that away
